need to move a classified discussion, even if it doesn't involve sending a document, to the appropriate form. >> members of congress included? >> of course. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> we'll now recognize the gentleman from florida, mr mr. desantis. >> the reason is because if that informati information, security is at stake. >> correct. >> in your statement, you point out administrative and security consequences would be appropriate if someone demonstrated extreme carelessness for classified information so those consequences that would include potentially termination of federal employment? >> correct. >> it could include revocation of security clearance? >> yes. >> and include ineligibility for future employment in these positions? >> it could. >> would you allow someone in the employ of your agency to work in a national security capacity if that person had demonstrated extreme

carelessness in handing top secret info? >> the answer to that is we would look very closely at that suitability. it's hard to answer in the abstract but it would be an important suitability scrub. >> so there would be instances where someone could be extremely careless but still maintain confidence? we have a lot of people who are very confident in this country who would love to work in the agency. potentially you would allow someone to be extremely careless and continue on? >> that's the trouble with answering a hype let othetical. that's why it's hard to say other than it would be a very important -- >> let's put it this way. would being extremely careless in handling top secret information expose an employee of the fbi to potential termination? >> yes. >> why shouldn't u.s. officials use mobile devices when traveling to foreign countries, especially if discussing class fewed or foreign information? >> because the mobile device

will transmit its signal across networks that are likely controlled or at least accessed by that hostile power. >> that's the guidance that the fbi gives all officials when they're traveling overseas, that's still good guidance, correct? >> that's good guidance. >> how did top secret information end up on the private server? because your statement addressed secretary clinton. you did not address any her aides in your statement. attorney general lynch exonerated everybody. that information just didn't get there on its own. how did it get there? >> by people talking about a top secret subject in an e-mail communication. >> so -- >> it's not about forwarding a top secret document. it's about having a conversation about a matter that is top secret. >> and those were things that were rioriginated by secretary clinton's aides and sent to her which would obviously be in her server but also included secretary clinton originating those e-mails, correct? >> in most circumstances it

initiated with aides starting a conversation. secretary clinton not only received but sent e-mails that talked about that same subject. >> that information you found, would somebody sophisticated in those matters, should this have been obvious, that was sensitive information? >> yes. >> i guess my issue about knowledge of what you're doing is in order for secretary clinton to be -- have access to top secret sci information, didn't she have to sign a form with the state department acknowledging her duties and responsibilities under the law to safeguard this information? >> yes. anybody who gets access to sci, sensitive compartmented information, would sign what's called a read and form that lays that out. i'm sure members of congress have seen the same thing. >> and it stresses in that document and other training people would get that there are certain requirements to handling certain levels of information, for example, a top secret document. that can't even be on your

secret system at the fbi, correct? >> correct. >> you have to follow certain guidelines. and i guess my question is, she's very sophisticated person. she did execute that document, correct? >> yes. >> and her aides who were getting the classified information, they executed similar documents to get security clearance, correct? >> believe so. >> she knowingly set up her own private server in order to -- let me ask you that. was the reason she set up her own private server in your judgment because she wanted to shield communications from congress and from the public? >> i can't say that. our best information is she set it up as a matter of convenience. it was an already existing system that her husband had. she decided to have a domain on that system. >> so the question is, very sophisticated this is information that clearly anybody who had knowledge of security information would know that it would be classified. but i'm having a little bit of trouble to see how would you not then know that was something that was inappropriate to do?

>> well, just want to take one of your assumptions about sophistication. i don't think our information established she was sophisticated with respect to classified information and the levels and treatment. >> isn't she an original classification authority though? >> yes, sir, yes, sir. >> good grief. well, i appreciate you coming. i yield back the balance of my time. >> i thank the gentleman. two documents he referred to, one is the sensitive compartm t compartmented information nondisclosure agreement. the other one is the classified information nondisclosure agreement. both signed by hillary rodham clinton. without objection, so ordered. now recognize the gentleman from missouri mr. clay. >> thank you for being here today and for the professionals whom you lead at the fbi. two years ago after my urgent

request to then former attorney general eric holder for an expedited justice department investigation into the tragic death of michael brown in ferguson, missouri, i witnessed firsthand the diligence, professionalism and absolute integrity of your investigators and i have no doubt that was the case in this matter as well. i did not think it was possible for the majority to exceed their unprecedented arrogant abuse of official channels and federal funds that we have witness the past two years. as they have engaged in a partisan political witch-hunt. at taxpayer expense. against secretary clinton. but i was wrong. this proceeding is just a sequel to that very bad act and the

taxpayers will get the bill. it's a new low. it violates both house rulings and the rules of this committee. so with apologies to you and the fbi for this blatantly partisan proceeding, let me return to the facts of this case as you have clearly outlined them. first question, did secretary clinton or any member of her staff intentionally violate federal law? >> we did not develop clear evidence of that. >> did secretary clinton or any member of her staff attempt to obstruct your investigation? >> we did not develop evidence of that. >> in your opinion, do the mistakes secretary clinton has already apologized for and expressed regret for rise to a level that would be worthy of federal prosecution?

>> as i said tuesday, our judgment, not just mine, but the team's judgment, the fbi, is that the justice department would not bring such a case. no justice department under any republican or democrat administration. >> thank you for that response. i know the fbi pays particular attention to groups by training agents and local law enforcement officers, participating in local hate crime groups, is that right? >> yes, sir. >> some of these organizations seem relatively harmless but others appear to be dangerous and growing. some even promote genocide in their postings and rhetoric online. if your experience, how dangerous are these groups and have they incited violence in the past? >> i think too hard to answer in the abstract. there are some groups dangerous. there are some groups exercising

important protected speech under the first amendment. >> okay, let me ask about a more direct question. gentleman named andrew anklin is the editor of the website called the daily stormer that is dedicated to the supremacy of the white race as well as attack jews, muslims and others. the website features numerous posts with t#white genocide to protest what they contend is an effort to eliminate the white race. are you familiar with this? >> i am not. >> the hash tag has been promoted by a growing number of white supremists. one nazi sympathizer tweeted repeatedly using the handle @whitegenocidetm. are you concerned some groups are increasing their followers

in this way, particularly some could become violent? >> i don't know the particular enough to comment. we are always concerned when people go beyond protected speech which we don't investigate towards moving to acts of violence. our duty is figure out when have people walked outside the first amendment protection and are looking to hurt folks but i don't know enough to comment on the particular. >> one of my biggest concerns is that certain public figures are actually promoting these dangerous groups even as you may know one of our most vocal candidates for president retweeted @whitegenocidetm three weeks later, he did it again, two days after that, he retweeted a different user whose image also included the term white genocide and that's not even all of them. director comey, don't these actions make it easier for these racist groups to recruit even more supporters? >> i don't think i'm in a

position to answer that in an intelligent way sitting here. >> well, i appreciate you trying and thank you, mr. director, for your exceptional service to our country. >> now the gentle woman from wyoming, for five minutes. >> my home has been ringing off the hook. from constituents who don't understand how this conclusion was reached. i appreciate you being here to help walk us through it. here's the issue that the people who are calling me from wyoming are having. they have access to this statute. it's title 18 u.s. code 1924. i'm going to read you this statute. it says whoever being an officer employee contractor or consultant to the united states and by virtue of his office employment position or contract

becomes possessed of documents or materials containing class fewed information to the united states, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under the title or imprisoned for not more than one year or both. armed with that information, they're wondering how hillary clinton, also an attorney, and attorneys are frequently held to a higher standard of knowledge of the law, how this could not have come to her attention. she's the secretary -- she was the secretary of state. of course the secretary of state is going to become possessed of classified materials. of course she was attorney general. she practiced with the prominent

arkansas law firm, the rose law firm. she knew from her white house days with her husband the president the classified materials can be very dangerous if they get into the wrong hands. she had to have known about this statute because she had to have been briefed when she took over the job as the secretary of state. so how, given that body of knowledge and experience could this have happened in a way that could have potentially provided access by hackers to confidential information? >> it's a good question, a reasonable question. the protection we have as americans is that the government in general and in that statute in particular has to prove we did this thing that's forbidden

by the law and when we did it, we knew we were doing something that was unawful. we don't have to know the code number but we knew we were doing something unlawful. that's the protection we have. it's one i worked for very hard. when ways in the private sector, i did a lot of work with the chamber of commerce -- >> may i interrupt and suggest this statute says knowingly remove such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location. the intent here in the statute is to retain the documents at an unauthorized location. it's not intent to pass them on to a terrorist or to someone out in internet land. it's just the intent to retain the documents or materials at an unauthorized location.

>> it's more than that though. you'd have to show that and prove criminal intent. both by law, that's the way the judge would instruct a jury, and practice at the department of justice. they have reserved that statute for people who clearly knew they were breaking the law and that's the challenge. so should have known, must have known, had to know, does not get you there. you must prove beyond a reasonable doubt they knew they were engaged in something unlawful. that's the challenge. >> may i turn to her attorneys. did all of secretary clinton's attorneys have the requisite clearances at the time they received all offer this e-mails, especially those classified at the time they were sent? >> no. >> they destroyed as has been noted 30,000 e-mails of secretary clinton's. do you have 100% confidence that none of the 30,000 e-mails

destroyed by secretary clinton's attorneys was marked as classified? >> i don't have 100% confidence. i'm reasonably confident some of them were classified. there were only three in the entire batch we found that bore any markings to indicate they were classified. surely it's a reasonable assumption some of the ones they deleted contained classified information. >> thank you, director. i yield back. >> now recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. director comey, secretary clinton's certainly not the only secretary of state to use a personal e-mail account with information later identified as being classified. i just want to show you, this is a book that was written by former secretary of state colin powell and in his book he says

to compliment the official state department computer in my office i installed a laptop computer on a private line. my personal e-mail account on a laptop allowed me direct access to anyone online so i started shooting e-mails to my assistants, ambassadors and colleagues who, like me, were trying to bring their ministry also into the 180,000 miles per second world. were you aware of this, that secretary colin powell actually got a private server as well? >> not a private server. i think he used a commercial e-mail account for state department business. >> private line? unprotected? >> correct, not a state department e-mail system. >> right. he went rogue so to speak. right? >> i don't know if i'd say that. >> yeah, all right. i'm not going to put words in your mouth. do you think this was careless

for him to do that? to get his own system? he installed a laptop computer on a private line. my personal e-mail account was on a laptop and allowed me direct access to anyone, anyone online. that's his own statement. i'm just trying to compare secretaries of state. because secretary powell's never been here. matter of fact, when we asked him for his e-mails, unlike the 50,000 we received from secretary clinton, he said, don't have any to turn over. that is a quote. on abc's "this week." i didn't keep a cache of them. i did not have thousands of pages somewhere in my personal files. but he was secretary of state. he operated on a private system. were you aware of that? >> not at the time but i am now.

>> okay. recently, back in october 2015, the state department sent secretary powell a letter requesting he contact his e-mail provider aol to determine whether any of his e-mails were still on the unclassified systems. are you aware of that ongoing investigation? >> i don't know of an investigation -- >> well, that request for information from secretary powell, former secretary -- >> yes, i am. >> you're aware of that. are you surprised he has never responded? >> i don't know enough to comment. i don't know exactly what conversation he had with the state department. >> all right. try to look at the -- you know, where we have a lot of comparisons of other cases. it seems like all the cases where prosecutions have gone forward, the subject of the investigation has demonstrated a clear intent to deliver classified information to a person or persons who were unauthorized to receive that.

if you look at the pfc bradley m manning, now chelsea manning, that was a court-martial, but he demonstrated a clear intent to publish that information, which was classified. julian assange, wikileaks, editor i guess and publisher. again, a wide and deliberate attempt to publish classified information. general petraeus, which we talked about today, shared information with his biographer. jeffrey sterling, former cia officer, was interested in writing a book, so he hung on to his information. even former director of the cia john deutsch who retained classified information on a couple of servers, one in belmont, massachusetts, one in

bethesda, maryland, after he became a private citizen. in all those cases, there's a clear intent. you said before, you look at what people did, what they were thinking when they did that. i would just ask you, is there a clear distinction between what those people did and what secretary clinton did in her case? >> in my view, yes, the deutsch case illustrates it perfectly. he took huge amount of documents. almost all at the tss level. had them in a hard copy in his house. attempted to destroy some when he got caught. admitted i knew i wasn't supposed to be doing this. you have clear intent. obstruction of justice. those are the kinds of cases that get prosecuted. that's what i said. i meant it when i said it. no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. that's the way the law is. that's the way the practice is

at the department of justice. >> thank you for your testimony and for your service. >> now to the gentleman from north carolina, mr. meadows, five minutes. >> there's been much said today about criticizing you and your service. i want to go on record that even though many of my constituents would love for me to criticize your service because of the conclusion you reach never have i, nor will i, so we appreciate your service and your integrity. i want to focus on the things you said, not the conclusion you drew. congressman gowdy and i talked a little about this. secretary clinton during a presidential debate said i never sent or received any classified material. they are retroactively classifying it, close quote.

so in your statement on july 5th, you said there were indeed 110 e-mails, 52 e-mail chains, which there was classified information on it at the time it was sent or received. so those two statements both of them cannot be true, is that correct? your statement and her statement? >> it's not accurate to say that she did not send or receive classified -- >> so she did not tell the truth during that presidential debate. that she never sent or received classified information, it was retroactively classified? >> i don't think that's a question i should be answering -- >> well, either your statement is not true or hers is not true. is your statement true? >> that i can speak to. >> okay, your statement is true. so the american people will have to judge with her statement not being true. let me go on. on october 22nd, she said, there

was nothing marked classified on e-mails either sent or received and in your statement, you said a very small number of e-mails contain classified information indicating the presence of classified information at the time. she makes a statement that says there was no markings. you make a statement there was. so her statement was not true. >> that one actually i have a little bit of insight into her statement because we asked her about that. there were three documents that bore portion markings where you're obligations when something's classified to put a marking on that paragraph. there were three marked "c" in parens. >> a senator, a secretary of state, a first lady, wouldn't a reasonable person know that is a classified marking as a secretary of state? a reasonable person? that's all i'm asking. >> before this investigation, i

would have said yes. i'm not so sure. i don't find it -- >> director, come on, i understand the importance of those markings. you're suggesting a long length of time that she had no idea what a classified marking would be. that's your sworn testimony today? >> no, not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be. interesting question -- there's a question about sophistication that came up earlier. whether she understands what a "c" in parens means. >> you say the former secretary of state is not sophisticated enough to understand a classified marking? that's a huge statement. >> that's not what i'm saying. you are asking me did i assume someone would know. probably before this investigation i would have. i'm not sure of that answer any longer. i think it's possible that she didn't understand what a "c" meant in -- when she saw it in the body of an e-mail like that. >> after years in the senate and

secretary of state. i mean, that's hard for me and the american people to believe, director comey. i'm not questioning your analysis of it, but wouldn't a reasonable person think that someone who has the highest job of handling classified information understand that? >> i think that's a conclusion a reasonable person would draw. >> in that, let me go a little bit further. because that last quote actually came on october 22nd, 2015, under sworn testimony, before the benghazi committee. if she gave sworn testimony that a reasonable person would suggest was not truthful, isn't it a logical assumption she may have misled congress and we need to look at that further? >> well, a reasonable person test is not what you look at for perjury or false statements. like i said, i can understand why people would ask that

question. >> all right. so let me in the last little portion of this, in your 3 1/2 hour interview on saturday, did she contradict some of these public statements in private? because you said she didn't lie to the fbi but it's apparent she lied to the american people, so did she change her statement in that sworn testimony with you last saturday? >> i haven't gone through that to parse that. >> can you do that and get back to this committee? i think it's posh to the american people and to transparency. >> i'm sure. as the chairman and i talked about, i'm sure the committee's going to want to see documents in our investigation and wh whatnot. i haven't done that analysis at this point. >> will you get that back to us -- >> gentleman's time expired. now recognize the gentleman from tennessee mr. cooper for five

minutes. >> i hate to see one of america's most distinguished public servants pilloried before this committee. we're good back seat drivers. we're all today apparently arm chair prosecutors. you've stated the truth when you said you didn't know of anyone who would bring a case like this. and some of the prosecutors have had decades to do that. i hope this committee's effort is not intended to intimidate you or the fbi or law enforcement in general or government employees. and i'm thankful at this moment you have such a lifetime record of speaking truth to power. because that's very important. it's also very important that apparently you're a life long republican. you're just here to do that job, state the facts. i think the key issue here is whether in fact there's a double standard, whether some americans

are being treated differently than others. i think i can rely on my republican colleagues to make sure hillary clinton's treated no better than anybody else. there should be some attention given to make sure she's not treated any worse than anybody else. i think we all know that we wouldn't be having this hearing, especially on an emergency basis, unless she were running for president. my colleague from massachusetts has just pointed out the previous secretaries of state are not being called on the carpet. whether that be condoleezza rice or colin powell or others. i think the grossest double standard here today is the fact that all the members of this committee, every member of congress, is not subject to the stap same law secretary clinton is subject to. that means we have exempted ourselves from the standard of other federal employees. my colleague from d.c.,

mrs. norton, referred to this. why did we exempt ourselves from the same rules? apparently our chairman lists his private e-mail account on his business card. we all have access to classified information. so i would like to challenge my republican colleagues here today. let's work together and introduce legislation to make the same laws apply to us as apply to the executive branch and secretary clinton. i would be happy to join such legislation to make sure we're not being hypocritical in this panel, that we're holding our s ourselves to the same standards as secretary clinton. i bet my colleagues would be the first to complain if, for example, e-mails were retroactively classified. that's the situation most people in public service would object to pretty strongly. how did you know at the time, if

you had no idea? so i think it's very important if we want as congress to have the trust of the american people to not be hypocritical, to uphold the same standards we want to see upheld by others. i'm thankful at this moment in our history we have someone like you in charge of the fbi. because too many things are highly politicized. the last thing we should do is criminalize our political system. i didn't see any complaint when bob mcdonnell was exonerated for having done certain things i think most persons would find highly objectionable. our court exonerated him just a week or two ago. so i think this is a moment for committee members to reflect, to take a deep breath, to calm down and realize exactly what you said, no reasonable prosecutor would have brought this case. and thank you for stating that

so clearly and publicly. i yield back the balance. i yield to the ranking member. >> mr. director, let me ask you this, first, i associate myself with everything the gentleman just said. you were talking about some markings a little bit earlier, is that right? can you describe what those markings are like? i thought you said there were documents with certain markings on there that indicates class fewed. go ahead. >> there were three e-mails that down in the body of the e-mail there were paragraphs at the beginning of the paragraph had a parenthes parenthesis, a capital "c," then a par renn sis. that is a portion mark -- >> that paragraph. >> that paragraph is classified at the con fidential level. >> out of the 30,000 documents, you found these three markings, is that what you're saying? >> three e-mails bore "c" markings down in the body.

none of the e-mails had headers, which is at the top of the document that says it's classified. three had within the body the portion marking for "c." >> thank you. >> i thank the gentleman. now recognize the gentleman from tennessee mr. duncan for five minutes. >> mr. meadows had one instance in which secretary clinton said she did not mail any classified material to anyone. actually she said that several other times. but it is accurate, director comey, that you found at least 110 incidents of when she had e-mailed classified material. >> 110 that she either received or sent. >> right. it also is accurate that, quote, clinton's lawyers claim their devices in such a way as to proclude complete forensic

recovery. >> correct. >> also when she said -- when secretary clinton said nothing she sent was marked classified, and you said, in your press conference, even if information is not marked classified in an e-mail particularly participants what, who should know, still obligated to protect it. do you feel secretary clinton should have known she was obligated to protect classified information? >> yes. >> with her legal background and long experience in government. also, she said at one point she has directed all e-mails, work related e-mails, to be forwarded to the state department. is it also accurate you discovered thousands of other e-mails work related other than the 30,000 she submitted? >> correct. >> before i came to congress, i expect several years as a

criminal court judge. presided over several hundred felony criminal cases. i can assure you i saw many cases where the evidence of criminal intent was flimsier than the evidence in this case. but do you -- do you realize or do you realize the great numbers of people across this country felt that you presented such a strong -- such an incriminating case against secretary clinton in your press conference that they were very surprised or even shocked when you reached the conclusion to let her off? do you doubt that great numbers feel that way? >> no, i think so, i understand the questions, and i wanted to be as transparent as possible. we went at this very hard to see if we could make a case. i wanted the american people to see what i honestly believed about the whole thing. >> well, do you understand, as the chairman said earlier, that great numbers of people feel now there's one standard of justice for the clintons and another for

regular people? >> yes, i've heard that a lot. it's not true but i've heard it a lot. >> well, even the ranking member who was here who of course, as we understand, had to defend secretary clinton as strongly as possible, he almost begged you to explain the gap between the incriminating case you presented and the conclusion that was reached. did that surprise you, that he felt so strongly that there was this big gap? >> no, not at all. it's a complicated matter. it involved understanding how the department of justice works across decades. how prosecutorial discretion is. the director just said she was extremely careless so how is that not prosecutable? it takes an understanding of

what's the precedent, how do we treat these cases. i get the questions and i think they're in good faith. >> we talked about gross negligence here. you said that secretary clinton was extremely careless with this classified material and how dangerous it could be. that it could be to disclose classified material. do you agree there's a very thin line between extreme carelessness? would you explain what you consider to be that difference? >> as a former judge, you know there isn't a gross negligence of all negligence. some classify it as close to willful. others drop it lower. my term extremely careless is trying to be kind of an ordinary person, a commonsense way of describing it sure looks careless to me.

the question whether that amounts to gross negligence frankly is really not at the center of this. when i see, there's been one case brought on a gross negligence theory, i know from 30 years there's no way anybody from the department of justice is bringing a case against john doe or hillary clinton for the second time in 100 years based on those facts. >> you ended your statement to congressman cooper saying no, once again, no reasonable prosecutor could have brought this case, yet you also mentioned earlier today that you had seen several of your friends and other prosecutors who have said publicly many across this country that they would have been glad to prosecute this case. >> i smile because they're friends. i haven't talked to them. i want to say, guys, so where were you over the last 40 years? where were these cases? for reasons i said earlier, it's a good thing the department of justice worries about prosecuting people for being careless. as a citizen, i want people to show they knew they were

breaking the law, then we'll put you in jail. >> you know many prosecuted for gross negligence by the -- >> gentleman's time expired. the gentleman from virginia connolly. >> i gather you're a republican. is that correct? >> i have been registered republican for most of my adult life -- >> all right -- >> not registered any longer. >> we don't register by party in virginia but many suspected my politics as being democratic. and inthank you for your integrity. as my colleague said. i said in my opening statement. your career characterized as speaking truth. you're doing it again today. just to set the context, director comey, not that you're unaware of this, today's hearing is political theater. there's not even the pretense of try to get at the truth. this is a desperate attempt

under a extraordinary set of circumstances and emergency hearing. i don't know what the emergency is other than one side is about to nominate somebody who is a pathological narcissist who, you know, was talking about banning muslims and mexicans crossing the border are all rapists and women who are pigs and terrified at the prospect of the consequences of that in the election. so let's grab on to whatever we can. to discredit or try to discredit the other nominee. punitive nominee. and you took away their only hope. and so the theater today is actually trying to discredit you. subtlety in some cases. my friend from south carolina uses big words like exculpatory and kind of goes through what a prosecutor would do. the insinuation being you didn't

do your job. my friend from wyoming is apparently flooded with citizens in her home state who are reading the statute that governs classification. a lot of time on their hands back there i guess. this is all designed to discredit your finding. now, the fbi interviewed secretary clinton, is that correct? >> yes. >> did she lie to the fbi in that interview? >> i have no basis for concluding she was untruthful with us. >> is it a crime to lie to the fbi? >> yes, it is. >> david petraeus did lie to the fbi? >> yes. >> and he was prosecuted. well could have been. >> could have been. >> that's always a judgment call. >> correct. >> was she evasive? >> i don't think the agents assessed she was evasive.

>> how many e-mails are we talking about total universe that were examined? by your team? >> tens of thousands. >> tens of thousands. and how many are in a questionable category that maybe could have should have been looked at more carefully because there could be some element of classification? apparently my friend from north carolina assumes we're all intimately familiar with the fact if a "c" appeared it means classification, though there seems to be some dispute because the state department actually said some of those were improperly marked and shouldn't have had the "c." aware of that? >> yes. >> yes. so could it be that in her hundred trip, four years, hundreds oversea trips to other countries as secretary of state trying to restore u.s. credibility that had been

destroyed the previous eight years overseas and tens of thousands e-mails, not excluding phone calls, classified information, the like, maybe a small percentage of e-mails, couldn't pay as much attention to them that maybe in retrospect one would hope she would have. is that a fair conclusion? could that be a fair conclusion? >> i don't usually deal in maybes. it's possible. >> well, you do deal in distinguishing between willful and inadvertent. >> sure. >> in this case, you concluded it has to be in the latter category. it wasn't willful? >> we concluded there was not willful conduct. >> so no on fuse cation here. there's no evasion. there's no lying. there's no willful intent to compromise classified material, despite the insinuations of my

friends on the other side of the aisle. and the only hope left in this political theater is to discredit you and your team in the hopes that therefore you won't have credibility and we can revisit this monstrous crime of using a private server. that server being the server of the former president of the united states that maybe mrs. clinton thought would be more secure than the leaky system at the state department. i yield back. >> now recognize the general theman from texas, mr. hurd. >> eye i'm offended by them saying this is political theater. for me, this is serious. i spent 9 1/2 years as an undercover officer in the cia. i was the guy in the back alleys collecting intelligence, passing it to lawmakers.

i've seen my friends killed. i've seen assets put themselves in harm's way. this is about protecting information. the most sensitive information. the american government has. i wish my colleagues would take this a little more seriously. mr. comey, director comey, excuse me, s.a.p., special access program, you eluded, that includes sci information. does sci information include humit and signit? >> yes. >> information collected from people putting themselves in harm's way to give us information to drive foreign policies. signals intelligence. some of the most sensitive things to understand what al qaeda is doing what isis is doing. so the former secretary of state had an unauthorized server. those are your words. in her basement, correct? >> correct. >> who was protecting that information? who was protecting that server? >> well, not much. there was -- a number of different people were assigned

as administrators. >> at least seven e-mails chains or eight that was classified as tssi? >> correct. >> so the former secretary of state, one of the president's most important advisers on foreign policy and national security, had a server in her basement that had information that was collected from our most sensitive assets and it was not protected by anyone and that's not a crime? that's outrageous. people are concerned. what does it take for someone to misuse classified information and get in trouble for it? >> it takes mishandling it and criminal intent. >> so an unauthorized server in the basement is not mishandling? >> oh, no, there is evidence of mishandling here. this whole investigation at the

end focused on is there sufficient evidence of intent. >> was this unanimous opinion within the fbi on your decision? >> the whole fib wasn't involved but the team of agents, investigator, analysts, tech, yes. >> did you take into consideration the impact that this precedence can set on our ability to collect intelligence overseas? >> yes, my primary concern is the impact on what other employees might think in the federal government. >> you don't think this sends a message to other employees if the former secretary of state can have an unauthorized server in their basement that transmits top secret information that that's not a problem? >> oh, i worry very much about that. that's why i talked about that in my statement. an fbi employee might face severe discipline. i want them to understand those consequences are still going to be there. >> director comey, do you have a

server in your basement? >> i do not. >> does anybody in the fbi have a server in their basement, in their house? >> i don't know. not to my -- >> you think it's likely? >> i think it's unlikely. >> i would think so too. i've always been proud to serve alongside the men and women you represent. there was no dissenting opinion when you made this decision. it's your job to be involved in counterintelligence as well. >> yes. >> so that means protecting our secrets from foreign adversaries collecting them, is that correct? >> correct. >> did this activity you investigated make america's secrets vulnerable to hostile elements? >> yes. >> do you think that pattern of behavior would continue? >> i'm sorry? >> do you think that pattern of behavior would continue? >> would continue? >> by our former secretary of state? >> i'm not following.

if we hadn't -- if this had not come to light you mean? >> right now, based on what we see, do you think there could be other elements within the federal government to think it's okay to have an unauthorized server in their basement? >> they better not. >> what are the ramifications of them doing that? how is there going to be any consequences levered if it's not being levered here? this is indeed setting a precedent. >> yes, the precedent, i want people to understand, again, i only am responsible for the fbi, that there will be discipline, termination to reprimand and everything in between for people who mishandle classified -- >> i'm not a lawyer so i may misstate this. is there such a thing as the case of first impression and why was this not possibly one of those? >> there is such a thing. which just means the first time you do something. the reason this isn't one of those is that's just not fair. that would be treating somebody differently because of their celebrity status or because of

some other factor. doesn't matter. we have to treat people -- the bedrom of our system of justice. we treat people fairly -- >> that person mishandling the most sensitive information this government can collect is not fair, it's not fair to punish someone who did that? >> not on these facts. it would be fair if that person worked for me. it's not fair to prosecute >> mr. chairman, i yield back the time. >> we now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright for five minutes. >> i'd like to open by acknowledging my colleague from north carolina, mr. meadows. here he comes back in the room for acknowledging your integrity, director comey. i think bipartisan sentiments like that are few and far between around here, and i

appreciate congressman meadow's remark, you are a man of integrity, director comey. it's troubling to me that that remark from congressman meadows is not unanimous at this point. it used to be. just weeks ago our chairman, representative chaffetz stated on national tv that republicans, quote, believe in james comey, unquote. he said this, and i quote, i just think that in all the government, he is a man of integrity and honesty, his fingers on the pulse of this. nothing happens without him, and i think he's going to be the definitive person to make a determination or a recommendation. but just hours after your actual recommendation came out, chairman chaffetz went on tv and accused you of making a, quote, political calculation. then our speaker of the house weeks ago referring to you, director comey, said i do

believe his integrity is unequalled. so your integrity, it was unanimous about your integrity before you came to your conclusion, but after, not so much. that's troubling. and i want to give you a chance director comey, how do you respond to that? how important to you is maintaining your integrity before the nation? >> i think the only two things i have in life that matter are the love of my family and friends and my integrity, so i care deeply about both. >> director comey, you discussed your team and they deserve credit for all the hard work and effort that into into this investigation. i think you said they were unanimous, that everyone who looked at this were agreed, that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case. am i correct in that? >> yes. >> how many people were on this

te team? >> it changed at various times. somewhere between 15 and 20. we used a lot of other fbi folks to help from time to time. >> how many hours were spent on this investigation? >> we haven't count on them yet. i said before they put three years of work into 12 calendar months. >> how many pages of documents to the fbi review in this investigation? >> thousands and thousands and thousands. >> the agent doing the document review, were they qualified or unqualified? >> they were an all-star team, a great group of folks. >> how about secretary clinton, did she agree to be interviewed? >> yes. >> come in voluntarily without the need of a subpoena? >> yes. >> was she interviewed? >> yes. >> was she interviewed by experienced critical veteran agents and law enforcement officers or by some credulous, gull by new byes doing their

on-the-job training? >> she was interviewed by the kind of folks the american people would want doing the interviews, real pros. >> you were asked about markings on a few documents, i have the manual here, marking national classified security information. i don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little cs on them. were they properly documented? were they properly marked according to the manual? >> no. >> according to the manual, and i ask june announce consent to enter this into the record -- >> without objection. >> according to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? >> correct. >> was there a header on the three documents we discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace? >> no. there were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, no header on the header or text. >> if secretary clinton were an

expert about what's classified and not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. am i correct in that? >> that would be a reasonable inference. >> i thank you for your testimony, director. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman and now recognize the gentleman from colorado, mr. buck for five minutes. >> good morning, director comey. >> good morning, sir. >> thank you for being here. i also respect your commitment to law and justice and your career. the first question i want to ask you, is this hearing unfair? has it been unfair to you? >> no. >> thank you. one purpose of security procedures for classified information is to prevent hostile information -- hostile nations from obtaining classified information. is that fair? >> yes. >> and did hostile nations obtain classified information from secretary clinton's

servers? >> i don't know. it's possible, but we don't have direct evidence of that. we couldn't find direct evidence. >> i want to without making this a law school class, i want to try to get into intent. there are various levels of intent in the criminal law, everything from knowingly and willfully doing something all the way down to strict liability. would you agree with me on that? >> yes. >> in title 18, most of the criminal laws in title 18 have the words knowingly and willfully in them, and that is the standard typically that united states attorneys prosecute under. >> most do. unlawfully, knowingly and willfully is our standard formulation for charging a case. >> and there are also a variety of others between the knowingly and willfully standard and strict liability standard. many like environmental crimes have a much lower standard because of the toxic materials

that are at risk of harming individuals. is that fair? >> that's correct. >> let's talk about this particular statute, 18 usc 1924. i take it we could all agree -- you and i can agree on a couple elements. secretary clinton was an employee of the united states. >> correct. >> and as a result of that employment, she received classified information. >> correct. >> there's no doubt about those two elements. >> i don't know whether the next element is one element or two, but it talks about knowingly remove such materials without authority and with the intent to retain such material at an unauthorized location. i'm going to treat those as two separate parts of the intent element. first of all, do you see the word willfully anywhere in this statute? >> i don't. >> that would indicate to you there is a lower threshold for intent. >> no, it wouldn't. >> why? >> because we often -- as i

understand the justice department's practice and judicial practice will impute to any criminal statute with a knowingly, also requirement that you know you're involved in criminal activity of some sort. a general mens rea requirement. >> you would require the same standard to environmental requirements? >> no, i don't think a judge would impute that. >> congress specifically omitted the word willfully from this statute and you are implying the word willful in this statute, is that fair? >> that's fair. >> what the statute does say is knowingly remove such materials without authority. is it fair she knew she didn't have authority to have this server in her basement? >> yes, that's true. >> and she knew that she was receiving materials, classified information in the e-mails she received on her blackberry and other devices. >> i'm hesitating as a

prosecutor, because it's always to what level of proof. i don't believe there's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she knew she was receiving classified information. >> that's not my question. my question in fairness is did she know she was receiving information on the servers at her location? >> oh, i'm sorry. of course, yes. knew she was using her e-mail system. >> as secretary of state she also knew she would be receiving classified information. >> yes, in general. >> and did she then have the intent to retain such material at an unauthorized location? >> she retained the material she received as secretary of state at her server in her basement, and that was unauthorized. >> you're asking me -- i'm going to ask you the burden of proof question in a second. did she retain classified information on the server or any

information? >> we established she knew as secretary of state she was going to receive classified information in her e-mails. dird she receive such information that she received as secretary of state on her servers in her basement? >> she did, in fact -- there is in my view not evidence beyond certainly probable cause, not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt she knew she was receiving classified information or she intended to retain it on her server. there's evidence of that. when i said there's not clear evidence of intent, that's what i meant. even if the department of justice would bring that case, i couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt those two elements. >> thank you very much. >> i now go to the gentle woman from illinois, ms. duckworth for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. when i first entered congress three years ago, like many freshmen members -- unlike many freshmen members, i actually sought out this committee because i